If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

An inquiry about contrastive linguistics

Hi there,
I'm a new member and I would like to ask about the relevance of deep structure to contrastive linguistics.what do you think? how can I tackle such topic? unfortunately, I don't have analytical thinking. If ANYONE has ANY IDEAS or SUGGESTIONS plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz let me know ASAP
Hope to hear from you soon
Nahla

Re: An inquiry about contrastive linguistics

Well, let's begin with a few definitions to provide our members with some background information. In this way, they might be better prepared to help you with your question. You might add a few examples for us to think about. Are you dealing with phonology (sounds), morphology (words) or syntax (sentence structure)? It's a fairly large area, your topic, not to mention somewhat controversial. As is, your question reads like something one would expect to find addressed in a master's or doctoral thesis.

All the best to you, and I hope your gain what you're looking for.

Contrastive analysis is an inductive investigative approach based on the distinctive elements in a language.

Here are some kinds of contrastive analysis: Intralingual
Analysis of contrastive phonemes
Feature analysis of morphosyntactic categories
Analysis of morphemes having grammatical meaning
Analysis of word order
Componential analysis of lexemes
Analysis of lexical relations

A contrastive analysis hypothesis has two versions, the strong version, and the weak version. The strong version is the one which most of the supporters of this theory base their claims, although it was unrealistic and impracticable. However, the weak version does have possiblities for usefulness, although even this is suspect to some linguists.

The strong version
"It is possible to contrast the system of one language (the grammar, phonology and lexicon) with the system of a second language in order to predict the difficulties which a speaker of the second language will have in learning the first language, and to construct reading materials to help her learn that language."
This theory makes a lot of demands of linguists. For example, the theory requires linguistics to have:

a set of linguistic universals formulated within a comprehensive linguistic theory which deals with syntax, semantics and phonology.
a theory of contrastive linguistics in which they can "plug in" linguistic descriptions of the two languages to be compared.
Wardhaugh (1974) calls this a "pseudo-procedure" - a procedure which linguistics claim they could follow, in order to achieve definitive results, if only there were enough time.

The weak version
"The linguist uses the best linguistic knowledge available to him in order to account for the observed difficulties in second-language learning."
This approach makes fewer demands of contrastive theory than the strong version. The starting point of this approach is provided by real evidence from such phenomena as faulty translation, learning difficulties and residual foreign accents.

Deep Structure and Surface Structure
Every sentence exists on two levels: the Surface structure which corresponds to the actual spoken sentence and the Deep structure which underlies meaning of the sentence. Thus, the single deep idea can be expressed in many different Surface Structures. Examples: Boy loves Girl (deep structure). The boy kissed the girl (surface structure). The boy was kissing the girl. The girl was kissed by the boy. (surface and deep structure).